arms controlNew York 12th July 2012

From the podium

news

The criteria section for the Arms Trade Treaty is the heart of the instrument’s capacity to deliver actual change on the ground. Unfortunately, the text set out on the matter in the Chair’s draft paper of July 3rd is too complex, gives rise to a number of inconsistencies and is unworkable. Conversely, the criteria section from the Chair’s paper’s previous incarna-tion (July 2011) is clear and can be implemented on a non-discrimina-tory basis.

To provide the ideal cornerstone to fulfill the ATT’s humanitarian impe-rative, Control Arms recommends some substantive additions to the criteria proposed in the 2011 paper to make them fully comprehensive –

“The criteria section for the Arms Trade Treaty is the heart of the instrument’s capacity to

deliver actual change on the ground”

in addition to the need for a robust risk assessment process against the criteria to determine whether to authorize a particu-lar arms transfer.

It is essential for the criteria to reflect the negative consequences the ATT must strive to prevent, such as serious viola-tions of international humanitarian or international human rights laws; adverse impact on the sustainable development of the recipient country; risk of diversion to unauthorized end-users; may seriously undermine peace and security, provoke or aggravate instability; be used to perpetra-te or facilitate armed violence (including gender-based violence), in the commis-sion of organized crime or to perpetrate terrorist acts; or that would involve co-rrupt practices.

This comprehensive list is necessary pre-cisely because of criteria’s crucial role in allowing the ATT to generate significant humanitarian benefits. In addition to the objective criteria itself, the so-called ‘cha-peau’ of the section must be drafted in a clear and robust manner to fulfill the instrument’s goals and objectives.

Language favored by a few countries, that would require States only to consider or take into account the risks, would fail en-tirely to create the necessary safeguards, as it would not require action based on the risk assessment – even if a substantial risk was clear. These formulations are akin to “feel free to ignore” translated into le-gal text. It is not difficult to imagine, for example, that an unscrupulous exporter willing to transfer arms to a regime mas-sacring its own people would claim ‘ATT compliance’ by stating it had “taken into account” the risks regarding human rights violations – but decided to sell the arms anyway.

Without a prohibitive requirement against such transfers, a country would be free to

disregard those “substantial risks” or override them simply stating ‘natio-nal’ or ‘strategic interest’.

In addition to the criteria themselves, the risk assessment process that would be used with the list above is also es-sential. Such an analysis should inclu-de the recipient State’s record of com-pliance in relation to the criteria as evidenced by formal commitments in treaties and other agreements; current government policy and practice to implement those commitments; and the capacity of state institutions to im-plement international obligations and commitments.

The risk assessment will need to also closely analyze the specific arms trans-

fer itself, including the nature of the arms being transferred and the stated end-use and end-user.

“Language favored by a few countries, that would requi-re States only to consider, or take into account the risks, would fail entirely to create the necessary safeguards”

When it comes to the strength of the ATT, the criteria are at the heart of its potential as an instrument. To be effective, a ‘pre-sumption’ against transfers that carry a substantial risk of the listed negative con-sequences is entirely insufficient. The obli-gation should be unequivocal, leaving no room for misinterpretations. The formu-lations suggested above, or a slight varia-tion thereof, are likely the only ones that can in fact deliver the “strong and robust” ATT with the “highest possible” common international standards – the agreed man-date of this Diplomatic Conference.

Policy cornerWe need an ATT that fully and explicity addresses gender-based armed violence

The irresponsible trade in arms is devas-tating lives and livelihoods around the world. We need a robust Arms Trade Treaty that puts humanitarian and human rights, as well as livelihoods, at its core. To do this effectively the treaty must address the issue of gender-based armed violence.

Sexual violence is often used as a delibe-rate tactic in conflict. Women and girls are particular targets as they are often viewed as the bearers of cultural identity. In addition, existing cultures of violence and discrimination against women can be exacerbated during conflict as an ex-treme manifestation of the abuse women face in peacetime. And even after conflict formally ends, gender-based violence can persist.

The ATT must include a criterion under which States shall not transfer arms where

there is a substantial risk that the arms under consideration are likely to be used to perpetrate or facilitate acts of gender based violence, including rape and other forms of sexual violence.

Explicitly referencing gender-based violence in the criteria will ensure the impact of an arms transfer on gender-based violence is fully and explicitly considered by national licensing agen-cies once the treaty is agreed.

This must further be recognized in the preamble and goals of the treaty. Moreover, in order to fully protect wo-men from the most prevalent forms of gender-based armed violence, the ATT must include SALW, its ammu-nition, and its parts and components – in addition to absolutely all types of transfers.

Gender-based violence is violence rela-ted to social expectations and positions based on gender and can be committed by and aimed at both men and women. However, most gender-based violence is committed by men, and is directed against women and girls and linked to discrimination.

Gender-based violence is defined by the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CE-DAW) in General Recommendation 19 as being “directed against a woman because she is a woman or that affects women disproportionately.”

Sexual violence includes rape, sexual slavery, forced prostitution, forced preg-nancy or forced abortion, enforced ste-rilization, indecent assault, trafficking, inappropriate medical examinations, strip searches and sexual harassment.

The Arms Trade Treaty: Securing Women’s Rights and Gender Equality

“On Saturday they took me and five other women into a room. It was in the morning. There were three of them. They told us to undress. I refused. One of them hit me with his knife. I told him it was not human. He said: ‘We will see about that’. He took his gun out and I was obliged to yield. The three men raped us, they wore masks. Af-terwards, they left and we were kept in the house until Wednesday. Every day, a gen-darme brought us something to eat. They returned on Monday. It was the same men; I suppose it was the same men. It was late in the afternoon and they raped us again. On the evening of 22 December towards 5pm, they released us. I have not dared to go to see a doctor since then.”

The arms trade has specific gender dimen-sions and direct links to discrimination and gender-based violence. Emboldened by weapons, power and status, both Sta-te and non-State parties often perpetrate gender-based violence, disproportiona-tely affecting women with impunity. This has far-reaching implications for efforts to consolidate peace, security, gender equality and secure development.

The arms trade affects everyone – men, women, boys and girls – in different ways. The following are some examples of how the arms trade perpetrates or facilitates the perpetration of gender-based violen-ce against women both in times of con-flict and peace. Including gender-based violence in the criteria of an ATT would acknowledge that both exporting and importing countries would have a joint, though different, responsibility to prevent these crimes.

Sexual violence is often widely and syste-matically employed against civilians du-ring armed conflict, though the scale on which it occurs is largely underestimated and its links to the proliferation of arms is rarely examined. Margot Wallström, UN Special Representative on Sexual Violence in Conflict, made this point in her official Statement to the UN Security Council, “conflict-related sexual violence is not specific to one country or continent: it is a global risk”.

Weapons are used to facilitate repression and state violence… In some states, wo-

men are disproportionately affected by high levels of firearms-related homicides and domestic violence. Research carried out in Guatemala by the Human Rights Ombudsman’s Office shows that for all murder cases, 69 per cent of women are killed with firearms.

The ATT should require States to not allow an international transfer of conven-tional arms where there is a substantial risk that the arms under consideration are likely to be used to perpetrate or facilitate acts of gender-based violence, including rape and other forms of sexual violen-ce. To apply this criterion, States must conduct a meaningful assessment of that risk – in other words, they must act with all due diligence when assessing an arms transfer application.

Extracts from a policy paper from WIL-PF, IANSA Women’s Network, Amnesty International and Religions for Peace In-ternational. For full text, please see: http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/images/docu-ments/Disarmament-fora/att/policypaper.pdf

Bullet pointsCivil society weighs in

From the real worldOn-the-ground stories on the need for a robust ATT

Kenneth Enimampi works in the Demo-cratic Republic of the Congo for “Femmes des Medias pour la Justice”, a member of the International Action Network on Small Arms. Kenneth is currently in New York attending the Diplomatic Conferen-ce on the Arms Trade Treaty in the hope of furthering her agenda, the primary focus of which is the impact of the irres-ponsible trade in arms on gender-based violence. Their approach to the problem is mostly media advocacy, initiating actions in DRC to bring arms control in the me-dia spotlight.

In order to create media awareness and pi-que journalists’ interest, Kenneth and her organization have established a training program for journalists that simplifies the technical language they are unfamiliar with. In addition, information briefings are regularly held. Her network puts for-th the necessary tools and resources to

enable the media to correctly report and call on their government for action. The network supplies women throughout the Great Lakes with documentation trans-lated into Swahili and Lingala in order to mobilize women against armed violence.

Kenneth explained how journalists in her country were ill versed in ATT termino-logy. Indeed, for these journalists, arms control holds too much technical langua-ge, which undermines their perception of the relevance of the issue.. Kenneth and her organizationare witnesses to the daily struggles of women in the DRC.

“Women are taken hostage, used as sex slaves, raped, martyrized physically and mentally every day in DRC. Their chil-dren are taken from them and put in the militias. This war has taken a huge toll on women’s youth. A simple task like getting up and getting bread is dangerous for the

women of DRC. They get held at gunpoint, threatened to death and then raped.”Arms are what allow these men to do-minate these women, she explains. They shoot toassert power. All day long, they waste their ammunition to frighten their victims. They can afford to, because the incoming flow of ammunition seems li-mitless.

Kenneth strongly affirms that without a criterion on gender-based violence and the inclusion of ammunition in its scope, the Arms Trade Treaty will be incomplete. Her presence and message at the United Nations should not be overlooked; rather, delegates should benefit from Kenneth’s expertise and recognize the direct correla-tion between the irresponsible internatio-nal arms trade and gender-based violence. “War promotes this culture of sexual vio-lence. Weapons do not nourish, but put an entire nation at risk.”

• Roughly 66,000 women are violently ki-lled around the world each year, accoun-ting for 17% of intentional homicides.

• Almost 50% of ‘femicides’ occur in the domestic sphere, when the perpetrator is the current or former partner.

• Between 2004 and 2009, the following countries had the highest femicide rates in the world, all over 9 per 100,000 (in descending order): El Salvador, Jamaica, Guatemala, South Africa and Russia.

• In the same period, over 60% of femici-des in Brazil, Colombia, El Salvador, Gua-temala and Honduras involved the use of a firearm.

• The proportion of homicides committed with firearms is often much higher on a local level. In 2007–09, the percentage of femicides committed with firearms in Ciudad Juárez (Mexico) increased dra-matically, reaching 82% in 2009 and thus nearing the percentage observed in homi-cides with male victims (89%).

Source: Global Burden of Armed Violence 2011

Deepayan Basu Ray, Oxfam: “The poorly regulated trade in arms and ammunition weakens the ability and willingness of govern-ments to create enabling environments. Development gains are reversed as communities are paralyzed; schools are closed, and im-mense strains are placed on health systems…”

Jasmin Galace, IANSA: “I am afraid that some of you may suggest that this is just a trade treaty. Yes, I am afraid for the people who will not get access to clean water and basic health services or who can’t go to school because funds are diverted to weapons purchases”

Mimidoo Achakpa, WREP, Nigeria: “The devastation caused by armed violence prevents my people from advancing their develo-pment and improving their own lives. This is why we are here. At the core of this treaty is the humanitarian imperative, the notion that the harm caused by arms proliferated because of poor trade regulations is unacceptable”

Hazem Ksouri, Tunisie Libre: “We came here carrying the people’s suffering and pain: the suffering of a mother who lost her son in Tunisia, the suffering of tens of thousands of displaced, detained and kidnapped people in Syria, where the evidence of crimes com-mitted against humanity by the Syrian government increases daily”

Seydi Gassama, Amnesty International: “It should be unthinkable that governments can choose to supply weapons, munitions, arma-ments and other arms to governments where the likelihood of those arms being used to commit or facilitate serious human rights viola-tions or war crimes or crimes against humanity”

Tweet podiumFrom the campaign trail#armstreaty

In the media Does a UN body good

A dose of international law

Ammunition - the Next Round in Arms Trade Control – AllAfrica.com – 9th July – Fora couple of hundred dollars or less an arms dealer can illegally source a blank end user certificate with the required signatures and stamps - needed to transfer weapons across international borders - and “if no one checks its authenticity (often the case) he can ship his wares to the world’s hotspots with minimal risk, for maximum profit,” a report by the Small Arms Survey (SAS) said in 2008.

Seeking Rules for the World’s Guns – Middle East Online – 10th July – A conference opened last week under the auspices of the United Nations to draft a multilateral treaty aimed at controlling the international trade in conventional arms.

When the UN wants to negotiate a global arms control deal, it turns to ... Iran – Fox News – 10th July – The stunning appointment by member states attending the UN Conferen-ce of the Arms Trade Treaty in New York came last week, and is just the latest example of the world body appointing rogue and repressive regimes to leadership roles.

Les ONG inquiètes du déroulement des négociations sur le commerce des armes à l’ONU – La Croix – 11 Juillet – Les associations invitées à la conférence de l’ONU sur un traité réglementant le commerce des armes se sont plaintes mardi 10 juillet d’être écartées d’une partie des sessions de négociations.

Time for the US to Get Behind a Global Arms Treaty – Business week – 11th July – As good American patriots celebrated the Fourth of July by blowing stuff up, international diplomats were gathering in New York for month-long treaty negotiations over a sector of the world economy that generates about $55 billion in exports each year: the arms trade.

Chance to make the world a better place - New Zeland Herald - 11th July - At this mo-ment an international meeting in New York is trying to solve one of the 21th century, a cause of conflict from gag-wars in Mexico to the civil war in Syria.

Useful resources: http://controlarms.org and http://controlarmsblog.posterous.com/Find out where countries stand on key issues: http://armstreaty.org/ Like us: www.facebook.com/controlarms Follow us: @controlarms

International Covenant on Civil and Politi-cal Rights, Article 26

“All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law. In this res-pect, the law shall prohibit any discrimi-nation and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimi-nation on any ground such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, proper-ty, birth or other status.”

Women living in the shadow of the gunIn the war-torn Democratic Republic of Congo, women are being victimized – at a rate of nearly one every minute.

The time to act is now. Sign the petition for a bullet proof Arms Trade Treaty at www.controlarms.org

Convention on the Elimination Of All Forms Of Discrimination Against Women, Article 3

“States Parties shall take in all fields, in particular in the political, social, econo-mic and cultural fields, all appropriate measures, including legislation, to ensure the full development and advancement of women, for the purpose of guaranteeing them the exercise and enjoyment of hu-man rights and fundamental freedoms on a basis of equality with men.”